7 ms·

Jesus Christ, this blog is absolute trash, peddling a massive number of conspiracy theories, from vaccines causing autism to FDA doing massive coverups. Even go

Jesus Christ, this blog is absolute trash, peddling a massive number of conspiracy theories, from vaccines causing autism to FDA doing massive coverups. Even going as far as to blame the Biden administration for things going on during the COVID vaccine period (when Trump was in power). Honestly, just _fuck_ off with this nonsense. "I have a treasure trove of data that shows vaccines cause autism, and it can be verified. But I won't release it, but trust me." I'm sorry the world isn't more interesting and there's no shadow government in place pulling the strings. The simple fact is people have always been autistic, and just went undiagnosed. I could even see arguments for it being less apparent when those children didn't have the comfort of the Internet to avoid developing their social skills etc. /Rant.

trimethylpurine 2y ago
I didn't read the article and I'm sure it's full of contentious claims, but it's undeniable that the FDA has repeatedly, especially during COVID and more generally in recent years, relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America. Relying solely on first person citation and abandoning peer review altogether by allowing the researchers themselves to be the reviewers has worked to distance scientists from politicians and from government. The political pull and profit seeking that plagues publication inevitably destroys the public view of government, science, and authority more generally. It should be no surprise that we'd see many writings critical of all three. All of that can be true without conspiracy. Literally anyone can lie and do it for profit all alone or with a friend. No conspiring required. Just a bit of common greed, and the knowledge that the average consumer is likely not trained in how to identify real or falsified research, and not trained in chemistry or any science for that matter, is quite enough to deceive the public. What we need is more scientists in politics, and fewer politicians in science.
- gcanyon 2y ago
  Aren't you skipping over the part where thousands of people were dying every day? When you say "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab" do you mean "under normal circumstances" -- which didn't apply at the time? Or do you mean "even given the circumstances," in which case I'm going to need cites for where they cut corners in ways that were inappropriate given that thousands were dying daily.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    Not skipping. Acknowledged. And the fact remains that this erodes trust in science, and government. And that's especially true when the justification advertised isn't the one you've given. Instead it was a media effort to demonize scientists who gave their expert opinions if they were not in line with a particular narrative. Agreeable or not, right or wrong, moral or immoral that's not science. Disagreement and free speech are necessary for science. And when you remove that, whether your reasons are dire or not, breaks the scientific approach to information. And that works, as expected, to erode trust. For better or worse, that's the cost of attempting to control the conversation.
    - gcanyon 2y ago
      Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Further, it means you can't just jump back to free-speech absolutism. Please explain how, at the time and given the circumstances, their actions were flawed to the point of deserving the criticism you're dishing out.
      - trimethylpurine 2y ago
        I'm not saying they were right or wrong. I'm saying, avoidable or not, trust in science and the government should be a factor in deciding what's best. Seems to me like, if it was, we'd have fewer articles like this one. Start by discrediting theories with results that adhere to scientific rigor.
        gcanyon 2y ago
        You said "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America" Now you're refusing to back that up.
        trimethylpurine 2y ago
downWidOutaFite 2y ago
Agree. These dangerous conspiracy theorists will soon be tearing our FDA apart. I just got my latest covid shot and pressured my doctor to get my 10 year old daughter's HPV vaccine a bit earlier than recommended to get it in before our vengeful extremist billionaire overlords take over. God save us all.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  This COVID argument is weird to me. Go get your shot if you want. I have not gotten any boosters (only had the first two). I just do not need it. My roommate had COVID just last month and I did not get it. The problem is not with the vaccine itself for most of us. It is about forcing it on us.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    The people about to run the health agencies of the US government aren’t of the opinion that vaccines are great but shouldn’t be mandated. They’re of the opinion that vaccines are dangerous and should be banned.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      Can you cite this please?
      - wat10000 2y ago
        “ There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.” RFK Jr, Lex Fridman Podcast #388 "He says, if you give me the data, all I want is the data and I'll take on the data and show that it's not safe. And then if you pull the product liability, the companies will yank these vaccines right off of the market. So that's his point.” - Howard Lutnick, Trump transition team co-chair, CNN interview, October 30
        FollowingTheDao 2y ago
e40 2y ago
I searched for the word autism and found no hits.
- II2II 2y ago
  Well, the article does go on about vaccines and a search of the site does turn up references about vaccines affecting autism and gender identity (among other things). Quite frankly, if someone has problems with how the FDA operates they would be better served by talking about its weak points and how to address them from a more neutral perspective. Even if their decision making process and the decisions they arrive at can be problematic at times, I have no doubt that the organization has made considerable contributions to safety.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    I agree and that’s how a so-called “RCT fundamentalist” like me is going to talk about the differences between traditional medicine and evidence-based medicine. I’m a “fundamentalist” because I don’t see traditional and clinical as a spectrum.
- philjohn 2y ago
  Search the rest of the blog - you'll find the crackpottery on display.
- neogodless 2y ago
  There's another article linked on this site: https://kirschsubstack.com/cp/151892950 https://kirschsubstack.com/cp/151892950 This is one of the main other sites linked whenever something is underlined to prove that there are "sources" for claims.
  - e40 2y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty bad.
AshamedCaptain 2y ago
The "natural medicines" subtitle should have given it up. The definition of "natural" is as diffuse as it gets; everything is technically natural, so obviously "natural" becomes a proxy for "whatever the author likes today". In fact, watch he apply the "natural" adjective to DMSO: > DMSO was a naturally occurring supplement Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. I also find it funny that he perfectly exemplifies why the need for blind studies: > It had a worse effect in the food when they knew it was in the food, because it became repugnant to them. Then proceeds to bash against "RCT fundamentalists". Obviously, we should decide on natural medicines by their taste.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. That is a heuristic I like to use, but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem. The benefit that the article is alluding to isn't that the substance is natural in the abstract but that it is easily available because it is naturally occurring and thus partially bypasses the US system of siphoning cash towards healthcare companies. In context being natural is a specific and fairly plausible benefit.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Yet “natural” is used to ambiguously promote many kinds of things in health and medicine. If you ask “how natural” a particular treatment is, you’ll quickly get outside the scope of the FDA and into corporate politics. If you ask “how effective”, the natural salesmen move onto someone else.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    > but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That would be exactly the same. "Healthcare companies" always get a cut, no matter how "natural" the substance is, for all definitions of natural that you can think of, because healthcare companies get a cut of everything that is even minimally active, FDA or not. In fact, there are big pharma companies that literally profit from selling water (Boiron, but plenty of others). Even if you define "natural" exactly as "something pharma companies don't currently profit from" (a very misleading definition), that definition is going to be uselessly ephemeral as pharma is sure to profit from it as soon as it becomes minimally popular. Therefore, it is again a useless, diffuse definition that is often used simply to indicate whatever the author fancies today.

trimethylpurine 2y ago

I didn't read the article and I'm sure it's full of contentious claims, but it's undeniable that the FDA has repeatedly, especially during COVID and more generally in recent years, relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America. Relying solely on first person citation and abandoning peer review altogether by allowing the researchers themselves to be the reviewers has worked to distance scientists from politicians and from government. The political pull and profit seeking that plagues publication inevitably destroys the public view of government, science, and authority more generally. It should be no surprise that we'd see many writings critical of all three. All of that can be true without conspiracy. Literally anyone can lie and do it for profit all alone or with a friend. No conspiring required. Just a bit of common greed, and the knowledge that the average consumer is likely not trained in how to identify real or falsified research, and not trained in chemistry or any science for that matter, is quite enough to deceive the public. What we need is more scientists in politics, and fewer politicians in science.

gcanyon 2y ago
Aren't you skipping over the part where thousands of people were dying every day? When you say "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab" do you mean "under normal circumstances" -- which didn't apply at the time? Or do you mean "even given the circumstances," in which case I'm going to need cites for where they cut corners in ways that were inappropriate given that thousands were dying daily.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  Not skipping. Acknowledged. And the fact remains that this erodes trust in science, and government. And that's especially true when the justification advertised isn't the one you've given. Instead it was a media effort to demonize scientists who gave their expert opinions if they were not in line with a particular narrative. Agreeable or not, right or wrong, moral or immoral that's not science. Disagreement and free speech are necessary for science. And when you remove that, whether your reasons are dire or not, breaks the scientific approach to information. And that works, as expected, to erode trust. For better or worse, that's the cost of attempting to control the conversation.
  - gcanyon 2y ago
    Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Further, it means you can't just jump back to free-speech absolutism. Please explain how, at the time and given the circumstances, their actions were flawed to the point of deserving the criticism you're dishing out.
    - trimethylpurine 2y ago
      I'm not saying they were right or wrong. I'm saying, avoidable or not, trust in science and the government should be a factor in deciding what's best. Seems to me like, if it was, we'd have fewer articles like this one. Start by discrediting theories with results that adhere to scientific rigor.
      - gcanyon 2y ago
        You said "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America" Now you're refusing to back that up.
        trimethylpurine 2y ago

downWidOutaFite 2y ago

Agree. These dangerous conspiracy theorists will soon be tearing our FDA apart. I just got my latest covid shot and pressured my doctor to get my 10 year old daughter's HPV vaccine a bit earlier than recommended to get it in before our vengeful extremist billionaire overlords take over. God save us all.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
This COVID argument is weird to me. Go get your shot if you want. I have not gotten any boosters (only had the first two). I just do not need it. My roommate had COVID just last month and I did not get it. The problem is not with the vaccine itself for most of us. It is about forcing it on us.
- wat10000 2y ago
  The people about to run the health agencies of the US government aren’t of the opinion that vaccines are great but shouldn’t be mandated. They’re of the opinion that vaccines are dangerous and should be banned.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    Can you cite this please?
    - wat10000 2y ago
      “ There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.” RFK Jr, Lex Fridman Podcast #388 "He says, if you give me the data, all I want is the data and I'll take on the data and show that it's not safe. And then if you pull the product liability, the companies will yank these vaccines right off of the market. So that's his point.” - Howard Lutnick, Trump transition team co-chair, CNN interview, October 30
      - FollowingTheDao 2y ago

e40 2y ago

I searched for the word autism and found no hits.

II2II 2y ago
Well, the article does go on about vaccines and a search of the site does turn up references about vaccines affecting autism and gender identity (among other things). Quite frankly, if someone has problems with how the FDA operates they would be better served by talking about its weak points and how to address them from a more neutral perspective. Even if their decision making process and the decisions they arrive at can be problematic at times, I have no doubt that the organization has made considerable contributions to safety.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  I agree and that’s how a so-called “RCT fundamentalist” like me is going to talk about the differences between traditional medicine and evidence-based medicine. I’m a “fundamentalist” because I don’t see traditional and clinical as a spectrum.
philjohn 2y ago
Search the rest of the blog - you'll find the crackpottery on display.
neogodless 2y ago
There's another article linked on this site: https://kirschsubstack.com/cp/151892950 https://kirschsubstack.com/cp/151892950 This is one of the main other sites linked whenever something is underlined to prove that there are "sources" for claims.
- e40 2y ago
  Yeah, that's pretty bad.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago

The "natural medicines" subtitle should have given it up. The definition of "natural" is as diffuse as it gets; everything is technically natural, so obviously "natural" becomes a proxy for "whatever the author likes today". In fact, watch he apply the "natural" adjective to DMSO: > DMSO was a naturally occurring supplement Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. I also find it funny that he perfectly exemplifies why the need for blind studies: > It had a worse effect in the food when they knew it was in the food, because it became repugnant to them. Then proceeds to bash against "RCT fundamentalists". Obviously, we should decide on natural medicines by their taste.

roenxi 2y ago
> Mentions of "natural" like this usually mean objectivity is not in the room. That is a heuristic I like to use, but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem. The benefit that the article is alluding to isn't that the substance is natural in the abstract but that it is easily available because it is naturally occurring and thus partially bypasses the US system of siphoning cash towards healthcare companies. In context being natural is a specific and fairly plausible benefit.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Yet “natural” is used to ambiguously promote many kinds of things in health and medicine. If you ask “how natural” a particular treatment is, you’ll quickly get outside the scope of the FDA and into corporate politics. If you ask “how effective”, the natural salesmen move onto someone else.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  > but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That would be exactly the same. "Healthcare companies" always get a cut, no matter how "natural" the substance is, for all definitions of natural that you can think of, because healthcare companies get a cut of everything that is even minimally active, FDA or not. In fact, there are big pharma companies that literally profit from selling water (Boiron, but plenty of others). Even if you define "natural" exactly as "something pharma companies don't currently profit from" (a very misleading definition), that definition is going to be uselessly ephemeral as pharma is sure to profit from it as soon as it becomes minimally popular. Therefore, it is again a useless, diffuse definition that is often used simply to indicate whatever the author fancies today.